A Riding Model of Proportional Representation
A Proportional Committee Represents Each Constituency
What follows is a response to some comments in Stewart Prest’s post at The Line regarding conservative coalitions and the First Past The Post electoral system. Please follow the link below to the original post at The Line.
This seems like an appropriate opportunity to pitch an idea first worked up when Justin was talking electoral reform.
Rather than a grand, complicated transformation of voting in the House of Commons, ridings would remain, as now, each with one vote in the House.
The one and only difference, riding candidates would continue to participate between elections. Any single riding legislative vote in the House of Commons would be the result of riding candidates voting, according to their weighted proportion of the general electoral vote received on general Election Day.
For example, if riding candidates A, B, C and D received 40%, 35%, 15% and 10% respectively of the general election votes, then they would bring that weighted proportion of voting power to decide individual pieces of legislation, for the riding. To cast the riding vote in the House, the local candidates would vote (based upon their weighted election result percentages) on any piece of legislation.
The advantage of this system? Minimum complexity or convoluted PR mechanisms. Regional representation remains. Individual ridings could choose to opt in or out of this system with no disruption of the national system. In other words, FPTP could be on the ballot, if it wins the FPTP system remains for the riding, if it loses, the new system kicks in. Simple, flexible, minimal change, proportional representation. Try it, if you like it, keep it, if not, not. No great muss or fuss. One majority part of the country doesn't force a PR system on another minority part of the country.
Of course, candidates would need to be remunerated for participating between elections, but surely democracy is worth the added expense.
There is a somewhat longer description here... Electoral Reform Plan
In response to a reply to the above which raised some questions about “free housing and the pension”…
As you say, details need to be ironed out from experience. I talk about such things a little more in the link I provided above.
But the basic idea, the 'winner' (most votes) goes to Ottawa to occupy the seat in the House of Commons. The rest stay home to form (with the sitting member) a constituency committee of sorts to vote on legislation on behalf of the riding.
Of course, if the sitting member wins an absolute majority of the votes, there's no incentive to collaborate. This might lead to more traditional PR models for voting systems in Ottawa.
But the idea of fixing the biggest flaw of FPTP, that someone can win substantially less than 50% of the vote but get 100% of the voting power (for the riding), is primarily what this model is trying to address.
As for pensions, good question. The general idea would be to support continuous involvement and commitment. There would need to be some kind of cut off though. Currently I believe one needs 10% of the vote to get expenses reimbursed. So there are models for such things. Not everyone on the ballot gets a pension for life. Obviously that would attract a lot of participants ; )
One of the attractions, it strikes me, is a single riding could give it a go. It does not require a wholesale change of the system to start to add proportionality to outcomes.
A further response raised questions about the relationship between the delegate in Ottawa and those remaining in the constituency…
Well the point of comparison is the current system. But you are right, the change would mean staying close to the constituency between elections. The party centres might not like that. The whips in Ottawa might lose a little leverage. But that's partly the point, to strengthen local politics and participation between elections. Encourage local collaboration to find points of compromise amongst the political differences. Kind of the point of democracy versus authoritarian (one party) solutions to political issues and decision-making.